Occupier Liability Act
The two occupier liability acts are, the 1957 act covers liability of occupier for injury suffered by lawful visitors. The Duty of care under the 1957 Act is only for people who have permission to be on the site (invitees or licensees) there is no duty of care for trespassers under this act. The 1984 act offers defence for trespassers as to the lawful visitor’s act of 1957. The occupier of the land owes a duty if he knows or has a rational thought as to if the ground is dangerous. The 1957 Act is the one relating to the question on this occasion.
The occupier must be selected before deciding a party which is at fault. The person with the most control other the site is the occupier according to the 1957 act therefore they are the ones who are liable. The case that represents this best is (Wheat v Lacon 1996). The case established that on one location it is possible to have more that one occupier, however the duty of care can be different for both (Giliker and Beckwith, 2008). This means that both Lord Waltersmith and his contractors are the occupiers.
A ‘common duty of care’ is owed by the occupier for everybody on site who have permission to be there, this must be equal to everybody. “A duty to take such care as …show more content…
An employee must provide a satisfactory level of work in order to receive payment, secondly the employee and the employer must agree that the employer has full control of the employee and finally the rest of the contract terms must be consistent with the existence of a contract of service (Elliott and Quinn, 2003). A year later a different approach was made when reviewing the case of Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security. The case was based on whether or not the worker was providing a service as a person in business on their own account. (Since Smith is an employee of lord Waltersmith under his authority, providing a service in return for a
The occupier must be selected before deciding a party which is at fault. The person with the most control other the site is the occupier according to the 1957 act therefore they are the ones who are liable. The case that represents this best is (Wheat v Lacon 1996). The case established that on one location it is possible to have more that one occupier, however the duty of care can be different for both (Giliker and Beckwith, 2008). This means that both Lord Waltersmith and his contractors are the occupiers.
A ‘common duty of care’ is owed by the occupier for everybody on site who have permission to be there, this must be equal to everybody. “A duty to take such care as …show more content…
An employee must provide a satisfactory level of work in order to receive payment, secondly the employee and the employer must agree that the employer has full control of the employee and finally the rest of the contract terms must be consistent with the existence of a contract of service (Elliott and Quinn, 2003). A year later a different approach was made when reviewing the case of Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security. The case was based on whether or not the worker was providing a service as a person in business on their own account. (Since Smith is an employee of lord Waltersmith under his authority, providing a service in return for a